I think anybody would save a few brand names......but not CAD files or tools on an 80s tail light. Beware of trying to figure out what happened by trying to make 'sense' out of it.
Oh, certainly. If the drawings were stored in a computer, they were probably retained, or destroyed. If they were only on hard copy, then either sold or destroyed, and more likely the latter. The tooling we know was already destroyed though, when TFS's supplier went under. I would have expected any tooling not necessary for production of parts for any vehicles as required by law, to likely have been sold off or melted for scrap. Hopefully the former, to YearOne, TFS, or similar suppliers, so that restoration parts could be produced. I don't hold my hopes too high on that though. Physical property like tooling is quite different from intellectual property of patents/trademarks though. I just wanted to clarify that too.
Oh, certainly. If the drawings were stored in a computer, they were probably retained, or destroyed. If they were only on hard copy, then either sold or destroyed, and more likely the latter. The tooling we know was already destroyed though, when TFS's supplier went under. I would have expected any tooling not necessary for production of parts for any vehicles as required by law, to likely have been sold off or melted for scrap. Hopefully the former, to YearOne, TFS, or similar suppliers, so that restoration parts could be produced. I don't hold my hopes too high on that though. Physical property like tooling is quite different from intellectual property of patents/trademarks though. I just wanted to clarify that too.
Jacking up another thread again with inane obvious drivel that everybody else already knows. Your definitely good at that.
Originally posted by Silvertown: Jacking up another thread again with inane obvious drivel that everybody else already knows. Your definitely good at that.
Jesus TF Christ...... BOTH of you CHILDREN need to grow the hell up and stick to the discussion.
And regarding that discussion-- GM (current manifestation of the company) still retains all the trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property of the former company. Don't believe me? Go build a car and sell it as a Pontiac GTO or Oldsmobile Cutlass, or Pontiac Fiero. I guarantee that if you don't do the proper licensing of the name you will be hearing from lawyers from the current iteration of GM, especially if you are making a profit.
And regarding that discussion-- GM (current manifestation of the company) still retains all the trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property of the former company. Don't believe me? Go build a car and sell it as a Pontiac GTO or Oldsmobile Cutlass, or Pontiac Fiero. I guarantee that if you don't do the proper licensing of the name you will be hearing from lawyers from the current iteration of GM, especially if you are making a profit.
Well, we disagree on the fine points, but It will just be a question of who exactly those lawyers work for....and the answer does not make much difference, does it? It only gets to be a bigger problem if you are seeking permission rather than looking for forgiveness.
GM renewed the copyright on the Fiero name fairly recently too. It was either right before or right after the bankruptcy. I know they're not in the Pontiac business anymore, but sometimes you'd be surprised of the records companies keep around. You can still get data on Colt guns from the 1800s, and that's after SEVERAL bankruptcies and buyouts.
I know gm recently trademarked some extinct gm nomenclature for upcoming corvette product but fiero wasn't one of them. Do you have a source for the fiero trademark?
I know gm recently trademarked some extinct gm nomenclature for upcoming corvette product but fiero wasn't one of them. Do you have a source for the fiero trademark?
Found it. It was last registered in 2007.
[This message has been edited by Silvertown (edited 10-03-2015).]
Jesus TF Christ...... BOTH of you CHILDREN need to grow the hell up and stick to the discussion.
And regarding that discussion-- GM (current manifestation of the company) still retains all the trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property of the former company. Don't believe me? Go build a car and sell it as a Pontiac GTO or Oldsmobile Cutlass, or Pontiac Fiero. I guarantee that if you don't do the proper licensing of the name you will be hearing from lawyers from the current iteration of GM, especially if you are making a profit.
Praise Joshua!
But seriously. Copyright is not something you "renew." It is something that exists as soon as something is created, and expires 70 years after the death of the copyright holder (at least until some law gets passed that extends or modifies that amount of time). Trademark and patents expire much sooner. Patents expire 14 years after initial filing, but many companies have worked through loopholes to "extend" patents. Trademarks must be actively protected against violation, to remain viable. There isn't an express "renewal" of trademarks, so much as there is the a requirement to protect against violations of its use. Failure to protect against violations of use of a trademark means it's really not that valuable too you, so a future defendant can product past inability to protect against, as valuation of their own marks which may interfere with one you own.
And yes, trademark/software/patent law is very important with regards to the work I do, so I deal with such applications on a pretty daily basis.
Trademark/pantant/GM corp/company, none of this matters for this thread (I know it went this way) BUT the only thing that matters at all is remaking the taillights. So instead of bickering/saying it can't be done/ is expensive/ or what ever, lets all brainstorm and figure out a way to make it happen. It HAS to be done somehow, we all need tail lights, if not now but we all will need some at some point if we keep these cars. If we all work together we will figure it out(hopefully with out a couple hundred grand investment) With enough ideas something will click and it could happen.
Originally posted by sardonyx247: Trademark/pantant/GM corp/company, none of this matters for this thread (I know it went this way) BUT the only thing that matters at all is remaking the taillights. So instead of bickering/saying it can't be done/ is expensive/ or what ever, lets all brainstorm and figure out a way to make it happen. It HAS to be done somehow, we all need tail lights, if not now but we all will need some at some point if we keep these cars. If we all work together we will figure it out(hopefully with out a couple hundred grand investment) With enough ideas something will click and it could happen.
My idea, a 3d scanner and CNC cut the molds.
C'mon people, ideas.
One idea was "ask GM if they have the drawings" which is where the trademark/patent and physical/intellectual property discussion came in. So yes, it was relevant to the thread.
That said, we don't need more ideas of how to make the molds. You don't need a separate machine from a mill to do it. CNC makes it easier/faster, but it could even be done manually on a mill. With a CNC, you could use something like Centroid's digitizer tool, to generate the code directly for cutting the mold halves. With the black plastic piece remaining in the lens (because it's incredibly hard to separate, some additional work would need to be done to split the digitizing of the inside of the lens into the code necessary to create 3 molds (the one half of the clear lens itself, and two for the black plastic piece. Then a third set would need to be made, to build the tooling for sonic welding the two plastic pieces together after they are molded.
Here's what the digitizer is like:
But the real question is, who is going to put up the investment to create a product they know they are likely going to be losing money on, from the start? I know how to make the lenses. All it will take to make them is money and time. Pretty much nobody is willing to front the money to do it, because the product would almost certainly have to be sold at a loss. If you've got the money to front, like I said earlier in the thread in reply to the veiled condescension from Silvertown, I will drop everything, start a performance/restoration parts business within the week, and if GT tail lights are a must have, could have them on market probably by next spring a this point. How to make the lenses isn't the hard problem. There is plenty of plastics knowledge in the world to make them. Heck, I could make three piece tail lights like the Trans Am has, for the Fiero too. All it takes is money and time. But like I said, tail lights are almost certainly going to be at a lost, because while many of us might need tail lights, there just isn't enough volume to sell at a price that most people on this forum are willing to pay, and to make enough revenue to cover ongoing operating costs. It's not bickering or irrelevant. It is the cold hard fact. So whomever is willing to front the money for it, will need to do so knowing they aren't ever going to make it back. So, if you've got the money to drop, and are ok with the fact that you may never get it back, and if you do it'll likely be 10 years on, bring it on over and I'll happily get started on making tail lights. Or I can make a kickstarter for it, and you can put up the funds that way, to save the hassle of travelling if you prefer.
Trademark/pantant/GM corp/company, none of this matters for this thread (I know it went this way) BUT the only thing that matters at all is remaking the taillights. So instead of bickering/saying it can't be done/ is expensive/ or what ever, lets all brainstorm and figure out a way to make it happen. It HAS to be done somehow, we all need tail lights, if not now but we all will need some at some point if we keep these cars. If we all work together we will figure it out(hopefully with out a couple hundred grand investment) With enough ideas something will click and it could happen.
My idea, a 3d scanner and CNC cut the molds.
C'mon people, ideas.
That would be the quickest. Last time I priced a set of custom cnc billet wheels it was $3000.
One idea was "ask GM if they have the drawings" which is where the trademark/patent and physical/intellectual property discussion came in. So yes, it was relevant to the thread.
That said, we don't need more ideas of how to make the molds. You don't need a separate machine from a mill to do it. CNC makes it easier/faster, but it could even be done manually on a mill. With a CNC, you could use something like Centroid's digitizer tool, to generate the code directly for cutting the mold halves. With the black plastic piece remaining in the lens (because it's incredibly hard to separate, some additional work would need to be done to split the digitizing of the inside of the lens into the code necessary to create 3 molds (the one half of the clear lens itself, and two for the black plastic piece. Then a third set would need to be made, to build the tooling for sonic welding the two plastic pieces together after they are molded.
Here's what the digitizer is like:
But the real question is, who is going to put up the investment to create a product they know they are likely going to be losing money on, from the start? I know how to make the lenses. All it will take to make them is money and time. Pretty much nobody is willing to front the money to do it, because the product would almost certainly have to be sold at a loss. If you've got the money to front, like I said earlier in the thread in reply to the veiled condescension from Silvertown, I will drop everything, start a performance/restoration parts business within the week, and if GT tail lights are a must have, could have them on market probably by next spring a this point. How to make the lenses isn't the hard problem. There is plenty of plastics knowledge in the world to make them. Heck, I could make three piece tail lights like the Trans Am has, for the Fiero too. All it takes is money and time. But like I said, tail lights are almost certainly going to be at a lost, because while many of us might need tail lights, there just isn't enough volume to sell at a price that most people on this forum are willing to pay, and to make enough revenue to cover ongoing operating costs. It's not bickering or irrelevant. It is the cold hard fact. So whomever is willing to front the money for it, will need to do so knowing they aren't ever going to make it back. So, if you've got the money to drop, and are ok with the fact that you may never get it back, and if you do it'll likely be 10 years on, bring it on over and I'll happily get started on making tail lights. Or I can make a kickstarter for it, and you can put up the funds that way, to save the hassle of travelling if you prefer.
I'm not attacking you dobey so chill. But you brought up a point I was thinking about the other day and that is no one takes risk anymore. It's the new corporate model. They make you pay up front for product that hasn't even been beta tested because youre the unpaid beta tester. Back on point, I like the cnc digitize idea. It's billet and it will last for many castings.
Originally posted by Silvertown: I'm not attacking you dobey so chill. But you brought up a point I was thinking about the other day and that is no one takes risk anymore. It's the new corporate model. They make you pay up front for product that hasn't even been beta tested because youre the unpaid beta tester. Back on point, I like the cnc digitize idea. It's billet and it will last for many castings.
Eh. Plenty of people take risks. But income inequality has grown way out of control in the US, the value of the dollar is down, and making things costs money, so there have been things like Kickstarter that came in and provided new ways to fund individual products. It's shared risk. It's no different than back in the day when someone would get the money to start a business by asking a bunch of different people they knew, to each put up a small investment to form the larger whole.
A mold made from billet aluminum will last many thousands of castings of an injection molded plastic, but it costs money to make the mold, just as it costs money to inject the liquid plastic and wait for it to harden. The dozen blocks of aluminum needed to make the molds will be big, and not cheap. There's the cost of digitizing, then milling, then polishing the molds and making them usable for creating the lenses. Then cost of materials for making the lenses, and any finish work needed when they've been formed. I have no idea what the sonic/vibration welding costs. Some of these costs now are lower than what they used to be 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Some of the costs are higher than what they were.
There were only about 63,000 fastback cars produced in 1986-88. Of those, how many fastbacks are still on the road? Of how many of those need replacement tail lights? Of those, how many owners are going to be willing to spend the money to buy them at $1000? $750? $600? $500? $400? $250? It's how risk is calculated. Risk is fine to take, but blind risk is suicide. Sometimes what you need isn't a risk taker, but a benevolent donor who doesn't care if only 10-20% of the investment comes back as revenue. Then OEM lenses produced by The Fiero Store from the original tooling were being sold at I think $400 for the pair. That was with the original tooling and simple, because all they had to do was have a supplier that could take the tooling and use it. They didn't need to reverse engineer anything, or try to come up with ways to drastically reduce cost. If they want to make lenses again though, they will have to, but I suspect it's very unlikely they will do so.
Eh. Plenty of people take risks. But income inequality has grown way out of control in the US, the value of the dollar is down, and making things costs money, so there have been things like Kickstarter that came in and provided new ways to fund individual products. It's shared risk. It's no different than back in the day when someone would get the money to start a business by asking a bunch of different people they knew, to each put up a small investment to form the larger whole.
A mold made from billet aluminum will last many thousands of castings of an injection molded plastic, but it costs money to make the mold, just as it costs money to inject the liquid plastic and wait for it to harden. The dozen blocks of aluminum needed to make the molds will be big, and not cheap. There's the cost of digitizing, then milling, then polishing the molds and making them usable for creating the lenses. Then cost of materials for making the lenses, and any finish work needed when they've been formed. I have no idea what the sonic/vibration welding costs. Some of these costs now are lower than what they used to be 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Some of the costs are higher than what they were.
There were only about 63,000 fastback cars produced in 1986-88. Of those, how many fastbacks are still on the road? Of how many of those need replacement tail lights? Of those, how many owners are going to be willing to spend the money to buy them at $1000? $750? $600? $500? $400? $250? It's how risk is calculated. Risk is fine to take, but blind risk is suicide. Sometimes what you need isn't a risk taker, but a benevolent donor who doesn't care if only 10-20% of the investment comes back as revenue. Then OEM lenses produced by The Fiero Store from the original tooling were being sold at I think $400 for the pair. That was with the original tooling and simple, because all they had to do was have a supplier that could take the tooling and use it. They didn't need to reverse engineer anything, or try to come up with ways to drastically reduce cost. If they want to make lenses again though, they will have to, but I suspect it's very unlikely they will do so.
I won't know until I get further down the road being this is my first shot at having a mold made that is larger than a 20 in wheel but I don't think it's going to be over $10 grand a mold. This is not a full fledged tool and die manufacturing where you have 200 employees much less 20. It's my money don't worry so much about the small details. There is not that many cars or people that can fork over the $4-5 hundred dollars as soon as there availible they'll be built at the time of order. The bigger problem is the black frame.
Originally posted by Silvertown: I won't know until I get further down the road being this is my first shot at having a mold made that is larger than a 20 in wheel but I don't think it's going to be over $10 grand a mold. This is not a full fledged tool and die manufacturing where you have 200 employees much less 20. It's my money don't worry so much about the small details. There is not that many cars or people that can fork over the $4-5 hundred dollars as soon as there availible they'll be built at the time of order. The bigger problem is the black frame.
Well it cost me $500 just to have my block line bored, deck height measured, and a basic wash in the hot tank. Reverse engineering something and building a mold out of billet, is going to be quite a bit more expensive. Maybe you actually have a business you can get some wholesale discount through, and know a shop that can do that, but it's still going to be pretty expensive. To make six molds (two each for the clear, black, and a sonic welding fixture), you're going to have to start with 12 blocks of aluminum that can fit the whole lens in, with plenty of room to spare for the box to encase it in a stable fashion. Just the aluminum is going to be quite expensive.
Do what you want with your money of course. I'm just trying to impress upon you that even with the knowledge of how to digitize a lens and cut a basic mold, it's still going to be extremely costly. Call http://www.dbmreflex.com/moules/ and see how much it would cost to have them reverse engineer a lens to make the molds. You'll probably fall out of your chair when they give you a quote.
Well it cost me $500 just to have my block line bored, deck height measured, and a basic wash in the hot tank. Reverse engineering something and building a mold out of billet, is going to be quite a bit more expensive. Maybe you actually have a business you can get some wholesale discount through, and know a shop that can do that, but it's still going to be pretty expensive. To make six molds (two each for the clear, black, and a sonic welding fixture), you're going to have to start with 12 blocks of aluminum that can fit the whole lens in, with plenty of room to spare for the box to encase it in a stable fashion. Just the aluminum is going to be quite expensive.
Do what you want with your money of course. I'm just trying to impress upon you that even with the knowledge of how to digitize a lens and cut a basic mold, it's still going to be extremely costly. Call http://www.dbmreflex.com/moules/ and see how much it would cost to have them reverse engineer a lens to make the molds. You'll probably fall out of your chair when they give you a quote.
I don't need your input on why you can't do it. I know shops that have done one offs for cars that have won the riddler award. I know the cost of this. I'm not doing the black frame that will have to be salvaged by the buyer. Your thinking space shuttle when all is needed is a mortor and tube.
I've gotten some replies from GM, but nothing concrete so far. The GM Heritage Collection and GM Archive service say that they do not generally release technical drawings, but referred me to someone else within the company who may be able to help. We may need to obtain a license from GM to produce these parts. In that case whomever will be doing the actual manufacturing would have to take this and run with it. I'll keep you posted if I get anything else.
I was CC'd on some more traffic between GM guys. The found the part numbers and I am waiting on further word. For reference the part numbers are 16504929 and 16504930 Tail Lamp Lens for GT. I would imagine one is the left side and the other is the right. Still no word if: A) The drawings do indeed exist, though I haven't been told they do not and B) If such drawings DO exist what it would take to get them released.
Good lead if your talking with the GM guys. If they don't listen to you, maybe you should share and relay the message / messages to The Fiero Store. I would imagine TFS would of been able to contact GM for technical drawings of some-sort. Maybe they never tried to go further after the molds were destroyed.
I guess it the way you ask them, they might help or agree to scan copies of the taillight info. Still a long way down the road if you have drawings, but its a start.
I guess GM didn't help us fiero owners that one day it was going to be a puzzle for us to find new lens after they were discontinued. But also possible GM thought that the "fiero-buzz" would of died long ago.
was pulled off a taillight today, might be a dash between the BL and ND, I cant tell from the pic, will try to remember to look again tomorrow if it matters.
If you need the other side let me know and I will disassemble another one.
[This message has been edited by sardonyx247 (edited 10-08-2015).]
Good news: GM still has the drawings (or at least at this point are claiming to). Bad news: In order to get them released one must be a GM Licensee.
They sent me an application for a GM Trademark License, but I don't think I'm the guy for that. It's geared toward the guy/company who will be doing the actual manufacturing. I have PM'd Silvertown to see if he wants to take this and run with it, and he has the right of first refusal. If he's out, hopefully Rodney, TFS, or another manufacturer will be willing to take this up. It seems like I have the ear of the right people and the door is open, now I need someone who is willing to go forward with this and is capable of doing so.
Good news: GM still has the drawings (or at least at this point are claiming to). Bad news: In order to get them released one must be a GM Licensee.
They sent me an application for a GM Trademark License, but I don't think I'm the guy for that. It's geared toward the guy/company who will be doing the actual manufacturing. I have PM'd Silvertown to see if he wants to take this and run with it, and he has the right of first refusal. If he's out, hopefully Rodney, TFS, or another manufacturer will be willing to take this up. It seems like I have the ear of the right people and the door is open, now I need someone who is willing to go forward with this and is capable of doing so.
It might be beneficial to understand that those GM drawings are in all likelihood NOT a CAD database and just what they say they are: 2D *drawings*. They may not tell you very much except reference the material specifications, critical inspection dimensions and call out the manufacturing tooling numbers. Being 1980's vintage, the lenses were probably made the usual GM design & styling studio way: Full size CLAY models were sculpted and from those models, "lofting templates" were taken and full size wooden "tooling bucks" or "masters" were then carved. The bucks were then used to pantograph machine the steel tooling. The master bucks were stored away to be used to make replacement tooling when needed. (CNC machining was often not in broad use for "sculptured surfaces" outside of very high end aerospace applications back then.) True Parametric, solid modeling, CAD was just coming into use.....I remember it well.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-13-2015).]
Good news: GM still has the drawings (or at least at this point are claiming to). Bad news: In order to get them released one must be a GM Licensee.
They sent me an application for a GM Trademark License, but I don't think I'm the guy for that. It's geared toward the guy/company who will be doing the actual manufacturing. I have PM'd Silvertown to see if he wants to take this and run with it, and he has the right of first refusal. If he's out, hopefully Rodney, TFS, or another manufacturer will be willing to take this up. It seems like I have the ear of the right people and the door is open, now I need someone who is willing to go forward with this and is capable of doing so.
Well, that is better news than a dead end. Maybe you should inquire about the GT windows too.
It would be good news if TFS could get involved into this as they have GM trademark licensing.
Originally posted by randye: It might be beneficial to understand that those GM drawings are in all likelihood NOT a CAD database and just what they say they are: 2D *drawings*. They may not tell you very much except reference the material specifications, critical inspection dimensions and call out the manufacturing tooling numbers. Being 1980's vintage, the lenses were probably made the usual GM design & styling studio way: Full size CLAY models were sculpted and from those models, "lofting templates" were taken and full size wooden "tooling bucks" or "masters" were then carved. The bucks were then used to pantograph machine the steel tooling. The master bucks were stored away to be used to make replacement tooling when needed. (CNC machining was often not in broad use for "sculptured surfaces" outside of very high end aerospace applications back then.) True Parametric, solid modeling, CAD was just coming into use.....I remember it well.
I guess the more interesting question then, is, do they still have those bucks or masters from which to make new tooling, or were those destroyed in the restructuring.
I guess the more interesting question then, is, do they still have those bucks or masters from which to make new tooling, or were those destroyed in the restructuring.
That's what I will investigate next, especially if they're looking to take money from me or anyone else. The bottom line question is am I being offered a product that a competent machinist could use to reproduce molds and processes that will result in these parts. I agree that fancy wall posters won't do anyone any good; however, if details are sufficient enough paper drawings COULD be sufficient.
Congrats for actually getting someplace with GM. I've seen other threads of folks that tried reaching out to them and had much less success!
Randye brought up a great point about those master blocks. If they have those... then going through the hassle of the paperwork and expense might be worthwhile! There was a guy I was talking to on here from another thread that said he access to some machines, but then he stopped replying. Anyhow. I'm definitely interested in helping to make this happen, and spending money where we need to. I understand it might never net a profit (after all startup costs are taken into consideration), but let's face it, all the money people like me and MadCurl and Troyboy put into our Fieros... we'll never see that again, either!
I also have some friends that are lawyers if you want me to see if any of them will look over the paperwork!
Congrats for actually getting someplace with GM. I've seen other threads of folks that tried reaching out to them and had much less success!
Randye brought up a great point about those master blocks. If they have those... then going through the hassle of the paperwork and expense might be worthwhile! There was a guy I was talking to on here from another thread that said he access to some machines, but then he stopped replying. Anyhow. I'm definitely interested in helping to make this happen, and spending money where we need to. I understand it might never net a profit (after all startup costs are taken into consideration), but let's face it, all the money people like me and MadCurl and Troyboy put into our Fieros... we'll never see that again, either!
I also have some friends that are lawyers if you want me to see if any of them will look over the paperwork!
No. I don't know where the master bucks might be or who might have them now.
I am assuming that most Fiero manufacturing tooling would have been either "reworked and re-purposed" or scrapped when the car was discontinued , with the exception of one-of-a-kind tools that were retained for the production of replacement parts for a defined period after series production ceased. Some outside suppliers to GM might retain tooling beyond their contract obligations or conditions in anticipation of manufacturing their own aftermarket parts on a license basis later.
I believe THAT is how the OEM Fiero GT taillight tooling came to be available to The Fiero Store.
Whoever the supplier was that had the OEM tooling that TFS was buying from might be the best bet to ask about the tooling. I would suggest contacting TFS and see if you can get that information from them. I heard *rumor* that TFS' supplier went out of business and the tooling was sold as scrap metal. I don't know what the truth is, you'll have to ask TFS. Knowing how GM functioned though, it would not surprise me to find that GM corporate held onto the master bucks so that they could try to control who made tooling, (they liked to have the ability to have multiple outside contract suppliers or change suppliers for parts).
Obviously all this is assuming that the tooling was made as I *suspect* it was. I know a retired Detroit GM engineer here in my area that actually did work on the Fiero project. I'll try to see what he remembers.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-13-2015).]
That's what I will investigate next, especially if they're looking to take money from me or anyone else. The bottom line question is am I being offered a product that a competent machinist could use to reproduce molds and processes that will result in these parts. I agree that fancy wall posters won't do anyone any good; however, if details are sufficient enough paper drawings COULD be sufficient.
Now you're talking about something else completely different, HOW to make the product.
Specific *manufacturing* instructions are almost NEVER given on GM drawings, and for good reason. They are far too lengthy and complex to put on an engineering PART drawing , and they CHANGE more frequently than the part design does.
GM used what were called "PROCESS ROUTINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS" That is *separate documentation* from the engineering drawing, and it describes *in detail* every single step of how to make that particular part, (or assembly of parts). They even specify what department and what specific machine a part is to be made on and then where it is to be moved in the factory for the next step.
The *process routing* is the RECIPE on how to manufacture the product.
Almost NONE of those instructions will be on the engineering part drawing.
The complete process routing from beginning to end for a single part would frequently FILL several 3-ring binders.
GM would have "audited" any outside supplier to make certain that they used the same or equivalent process routing.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-13-2015).]
Appreciate you being willing to ask your GM contact, and for the details on what the naming scheme is for production steps.
I'll have to dig through my favorites, I thought I had a thread where someone posted the reply from TFS about them... if memory serves, the supplier passed away, and his wife didn't really realize (or care?) about all the tooling/equipment, and had it all picked up for scrapping. I might be confusing it with a different reproduction part... so I'll try to confirm.
Originally posted by randye: Whoever the supplier was that had the OEM tooling that TFS was buying from might be the best bet to ask about the tooling. I would suggest contacting TFS and see if you can get that information from them. I heard *rumor* that TFS' supplier went out of business and the tooling was sold as scrap metal. I don't know what the truth is, you'll have to ask TFS.
I don't think it's a rumor. In another thread, JohnWPB state that Matt from TFS clearly stated their supplier went out of business and the tooling was destroyed. I don't think that supplier was an OEM supplier for GM, but they were using the tooling that TFS obtained from GM. I'm pretty sure that if the tooling wasn't destroyed and TFS had it, they would have found another supplier to produce the lenses by now.
This morning I received a sample of the drawings and they look like the real deal. I can't use them, but they look like something that could be translated into CAD and used by someone with the equipment and know-how. Silvertown still gets first dibs, but if he opts out I'll be glad to use my connections to get the info to someone who can use this.
No. I don't know where the master bucks might be or who might have them now.
I am assuming that most Fiero manufacturing tooling would have been either "reworked and re-purposed" or scrapped when the car was discontinued , with the exception of one-of-a-kind tools that were retained for the production of replacement parts for a defined period after series production ceased. Some outside suppliers to GM might retain tooling beyond their contract obligations or conditions in anticipation of manufacturing their own aftermarket.
Obviously all this is assuming that the tooling was made as I *suspect* it was. I know a retired Detroit GM engineer here in my area that actually did work on the Fiero project. I'll try to see what he remembers.
Having worked in tool and die I know that there are more than 1 set of dies for a product. When one die develops a defect after many uses a new one is swapped into the press and the old one is sent back for repairs to be later swapped when the other becomes out of spec. There could be multiple dies and maybe one is sitting in some dusty gm warehouse.
I asked about any materials beyond drawings. There are five pages of drawings available, but nothing else. I think they got rid of all of the physical hardware some time ago, but retained the drawings.
Wouldn't it just be easier to 3D laser scan a good/decent set of lenses? The technology exists, why not use it vs doing it the "old" way?
Just asking...
DING DING DING Ladies and Gentlemen we have a WINNER!
YES indeed. A good set of OEM lenses can easily be either optically or laser scanned, or even manually (analog probe) scanned into 3D digital surface data that can then be utilized to construct the complete 3D parametric solid model.
No need at all for GM 2D drawings or tedious "converting" of information from 2D drawing into 3D model data.
Even a simple CMM will give a perfectly useable point data cloud to surface model the lenses
